Hi, I’m Zach Elwood, the author of the book Verbal Poker Tells (amongst other poker tells projects). This is my blog.
My email acquaintance Michael Blinder recently wrote to point out something very awesome in the movie Rounders. Both Teddy KGB and Mike McDermott (Matt Damon’s character) exhibit a few poker tells besides the infamous Oreo cookie one. Both of them exhibit a kind of poker tell I call “disclaimers”, which are verbal statements designed to explain away (in other words, disclaim) the meaning behind an action. It’s like when an amateur player moves all-in with the nuts and says “I’m pretty short, might as well go all in.” (Here’s a link to a previous post about disclaimers.)
Before going on, though, let’s look at an example of this poker tell from a real game, just so you know this has real-world application. Here’s an obvious one from PokerStars’ Big Game where amateur David Fishman makes the nuts against Phil Hellmuth (starts at 14:30).
Hand starts at 14:30
Hellmuth bets into Fishman and Fishman feigns uncertainty, saying “I’m not gonna let you do this to me again, Phil.” Then he pushes all in. Fishman is trying to suggest that he is tired of being pushed around and that is why he is fighting back. This is a very classic example of a disclaimer, and many amateurs do this. If an amateur player tries to make excuses for why he’s betting or raising, you should be very wary. Even a lot of experienced players will do subtle variations of this (although experienced players will also be capable of switching these kinds of things up, so it’s best to only trust it from players who you think are predictable.)
In the first scene in Rounders between Teddy KGB and Matt Damon’s character Mike McDermott, the match ends with Mike getting A9 on a board of A8993 for the full house and KGB having AA for the higher full house. Watch the clip once through, if you have time, and see if you notice examples of disclaimers.
Okay, here’s the first one, at 1:42: Mike raises pre-flop and KGB calls with his AA, saying “Position raise. I call.” He’s implying that he’s calling because he thinks Damon’s raise is based solely on his dealer button. Obviously he’s calling because he’s very strong and wants to misdirect Damon’s attention from that idea.
Next one: on the river, KGB bets into Mike, and Mike feigns shock, saying “Time” and holding up his hands as if overwhelmed.
Then, a minute later, after his “pondering”, Mike goes all in, saying “Yeah, I’m gonna go all-in, cause I don’t think you got the spades.” This is a disclaimer, stating that Mike is going all-in mainly because he thinks KGB did not make a hand. Not to mention the fact that Mike’s over-the-top display of shock at KGB’s bet, and then his subsequent pushing all-in, was a hell of a tell, too.
These are ridiculously obvious, aren’t they? Let’s put aside the fact that these two are leaking tells like a grade-schooler would and move on to the last scene; the final confrontation between KGB and Damon.
Feel free to watch it by yourself first, to see if you can spot the disclaimers.
In this hand, Mike raises pre-flop with 89 of spades and KGB calls. The flop comes 67T, giving Mike the nuts. Mike checks, KGB bets $2,000, and Damon calls, saying “All right, I’ll call the 2 grand, I’ll gamble.” This is one you hear a lot, although it’s so common to say it, it doesn’t mean much, especially in small-bet or calling situations (as opposed to betting). Although in this case, considering Mike was the pre-flop raiser, then checked, then gave a disclaimer, it might make you a little wary if you were KGB.
Okay, then the turn comes a blank. Not really a verbal disclaimer, but Mike sighs, like he’s hurt. Sort of reminds me of the hand in the WSOP when Matt Damon flopped a boat and got real sad-seeming. And this is a good place to point out that disclaimers are just another manifestation of the same type of instinct that players have when they try to look sad or upset by the cards; they’re all just different ways players try to misdirect your attention away from the truth. They’re manifestations of the weak-means-strong and strong-means-weak behaviors that Mike Caro talked about.
KGB bets the pot, and Mike calls, saying, “Okay, Teddy, I’m gonna call you, or else I won’t respect myself tomorrow morning.” Again, to really beat a dead horse, Mike is implying he’s only calling because he doesn’t want to be run over by KGB, so we can be pretty sure he’s calling for another reason.
Then Mike slowrolls KGB on the river and that’s the end.
I thought at first, when I started studying the first scene, that maybe the movie-makers were having Mike display this tell purposefully, at the start of the movie, to show that he had grown as a player by the end. That he had gotten rid of his obvious verbal tells. But, nope, he was letting out a stream of disclaimers there, too. And of course KGB had one himself with his Aces.
Okay, so KGB and Mike seem like total fish. That’s something that’s become increasingly obvious throughout the years the more I’ve played and the more I’ve learned. It’s a process we all go through when it comes to this movie. Young, blind, ignorant love gives way to experience and harsh criticism. I love Rounders, but it’s hard to argue it depicts realistic high-stakes poker scenes. (But you could also argue that realistic high-stakes poker scenes would not make a good movie.)
And even though Rounders is fiction, I think you can take away some valuable real-life lessons; if you hear a guy trying to give you excuses for why he’s calling, betting, or raising, you should be very careful. If you hear a guy use reliable disclaimers in every hand he plays, like Mike does here, I’d say you’re in a very good game.
So why are these things in the movie? Are they supposed to be there? What does it mean from a scriptwriting perspective? Did the screenwriters Brian Koppelman (who I follow on Twitter, by the way: @briankoppelman – please don’t take offense, Brian; I’m a fan) and David Levien put these tells in purposefully? Did they know that these were obvious tells? My guess is that they didn’t. I think these tells are a result of just trying to make the characters “double-cross” each other in interesting ways, to make them seem “tricky”, to make them seem interesting. Like in an action movie, when the hero hides a second gun behind his back and feigns fear when his main gun has been taken away; these are just ways to make our hero or villain more conniving and clever. I don’t think these things were purposefully included as poker tells.
If these tells are there as a result of the screenwriters not realizing what these things meant, you could say that these tells are actually the tells of the screenwriters themselves.
But I could be wrong. The other option is that Koppelman and Levien knew they were obvious tells, but that it was the price they thought they had to pay to “Hollywoodize” poker and make it interesting. This explanation might make sense, because if KGB and Mike McDermott were silent, as they would often be in a real life game, it wouldn’t make for very compelling drama. Although then I would argue that it is still possible to create dramatic table talk that is realistic, too. That would be a scene I’d like to write; a dramatic, tense scene, but yet one that stays true to what decent players would be doing and saying in such a situation.
If you enjoyed this post, I think you’d like my book Verbal Poker Tells. Of my three poker tells book, Verbal Poker Tells is the one I’m most proud of due to its uniqueness and also due to the fact that verbal behavior is often so much more reliable and useful than physical behavior.
Finally, I’d like to thank Michael Blinder again for bringing this stuff to my attention. Michael is also the same guy who wrote a most awesome review of my poker tells book.
I always thought it was kind of dumb that KGB’s “big tell” was eating Oreos. Seriously? You mean to tell me that this guy has been cleaning house for years always eating Oreos out of a chip tray and Matt Damon is the first guy to notice this?
That said, fun movie. =)
What if everyone else at the poker club knew KGB’s Oreo tell, and Matt Damon was the last one to figure it out? Everyone was like, “Duh, you idiot, everyone knew he ate Oreos when he was strong, then you had to go and tell him. Great job, genius.”
It’s unlikely that Matt Damon has played with KGB more than the two times that are shown in the film. He’s only playing with KGB now because he’s significantly raised the stakes in which he plays.
If KGB is as dangerous as they make it seem other players might not be willing to talk about him behind his back. Even if other players do recognize this tell they might be unwilling to profit from it out of fear.
I wonder if you missed a couple on the last clip. We don’t see Teddy’s hand, but it can only be TT. On the turn, “In the morning, self-respect is all you will have.” And, on the flop, “that Ace could not have helped you.”
I read recently, in a book on poker tells, that if the other player is staring you down, giving you the finger, and pushing all his chips in the pot; he is rarely weak.
In the AC scene Damon covers the basics of tells (“if a fish acts strong he’s bluffing, if he acts meek he’s got a hand”) with a voice over a montage of tourist tells. Also, the golf pro’s bluff is legitimately obvious (discouraging table talk, upright posture, threatening body language, stare). So the writers had a decent knowledge of tells.
It’s not unheard of for good players to give away info with table talk. Mike easily could have thought playing to KGB’s ego would work. There’s nothing to say it wouldn’t work either; KGB obviously viewed the game as a pissing contest. He would probably be blind to any tells that feed into his dominant self image.
To me the, tragic moments are the golf pro’s horrendous string raise and Mike blowing Johnny effin’ Chan out of a pot in a limit game.
Nice. I think it’s not unheard of, I agree. I think it’s fairly unheard of to see as much 1st-level table talk as they exhibited in the movie. It’d be one thing if it was done in a reverse fashion a few times, but it was all on a really first-level basis. In other words, not complicated. I think you’re right; I think they had a little bit of knowledge of tells (stuff they pulled from Caro), but I think they could have benefited from more thought on it. Still a great movie though, don’t get me wrong.
Great post! Unfortunately poker players will now hunt you down for ruining the ultimate poker movie …
I have a half finished review of your book that’s been gathering dust for a few months. I’ll try to dig that out and get it posted this month.
No pressure, sir. Though that would obviously be awesome.
Still love Rounders. No disrespect! I’d watch it again right now!
Hi Guys I’ve watched rounders a couple of times and like most amateur poker players I have a dream of winning a WSOP bracelet but I think the mistake that you guys are seeing with KGB’s tell with the oreo’s isn’t that he eats oreo’s when he’s strong or weak its the manner in which he eats the oreos when he’s strong he “listens to the sound the oreo makes when he seperates the two biscuit parts close to his ear” and when he’s weak he seperates it “normally” while watching which Matt Damon picked up on thats KGB’s tell.
Anybody disagree with me?
Nolan from South Africa
Email from James Richmond:
You mention that Mike doesn’t show development with his disclaimers from the first session in the film to the last session. I agree that his disclaimers in the beginning are soft, he falls into a rhythm and as he mentions is blinded by Vegas and forgets he is up against talent with his entire bankroll. The last hand, where he flops the straight, I think he is aware of his disclaimers now, he has had months and months to think about only one hand, the hand he lost it all. He disclaims he is on a draw because he wants KGB to think he has actually has a made hand because he knows KGB has something and now like you said just needs to dodge the flush or the board pairing. KGB doesn’t consider the nuts, “this son of beech all night, check, check,
check, he trapped me”. I know you know straights can be deceptive and more
easily missed than anything else.
Mike doubles the blind, after claiming ‘he isn’t going anywhere’, KGB has seen him double the blind before in the beginning of the movie with Ac9c, but here in this final hand its too early to have enough information. I gotta say the acting from
both John Malkovich and Matt Damon is perfect, when Mike checks the flops,
Teddy looks angry, “even KGB isn’t immune to getting a little rattled” mentioned just before the hand starts, it appears he was hoping Mike would bet so Teddy bets $2000 reluctantly(another tell) and Mike just calls. “Alright I’ll call the two grand, I’ll gamble, don’t splash the pot.”
Mike disclaims as Teddy asks “You’re on a draw Mike?”. Teddy is thinking he is not falling for Mikes disclaimer, when he took his original $30,000 mike disclaimed “I don’t think you got the spades”, and they haven’t played since then so Teddy knows Mike and thinks he has him all figured out and puts mike on something like, A10, AK, 1010 JJ QQ KK 88 77, hard to say at this point with as little information as he has but he knows mike isn’t on a draw.
Turn is a brick, a deuce, Teddy bets the pot and mike disclaims again he is drawing. Here KGB has to know mike is holding something big after calling a pot since bet, but when the ace falls on the river, Teddy is loving it, he knows his set is best, even though its not, in his mind he is certain, he splashes the pot knowing mike has to call. In the big hand in the beginning of the film, neither player held the nuts, Mike lost to Teddys Aces full but Teddy could of lost to four 9s since he wasn’t holding one of them, so second nuts in Teddys eyes is gold when on the final hand he hits his trip
Aces, I believe after years and years of thinking about it.
He says “the ace could not have helped you”, a disclaimer from Teddy because if Mike has A10 AK Teddy thinks Mike will be like you’re wrong KGB the Ace did help me I call and then Teddy shows AA again just like in the beginning. If Mike was just on a draw and missed why bet big on the river except for the dramatics of the situation, telling him not to splash the pot. Like you say, no flush draw and is Mike really gonna chance his life on an inside straight draw, even top pair inside straight? Mike wouldn’t of just called with nothing on the river and gave his chips and his life away.
Teddy traps himself and Mike cleverly used misinformation to set that trap. KGB has to look at the cards again because he was so certain of what Mike had, a made hand, he didn’t even remember what was on the board. Poker, it only has four options, fold, bet, call, raise, so a donkey gets things right sometimes, and with poker having unlimited options its not always played perfectly. Teddy played this hand badly, he started with a big hand and let mike trap him, he should of checked the river, just like mike should of just called the $15000 in the beginning of the movie. Mike played he hand great, thanks to watching the ’88 world series footage with Johnny Chan and his deceptive disclaimers which he executed perfectly.
That’s why I’m confident Teddy held AA, but as Teddy showed at the end and Mike showed at the beginning a little too much confidence can be a bad thing if you are holding second nuts.
I gotta say, maybe its not played perfect from either player but after recently watching all the other popular card playing films, Cincinnati Kid, Shade, Deal, California Split, and others I’m probably forgetting. The hands played in this movie are the best I’ve seen, It’s started a discussion for 15 years now with most anyone thats ever played holdem, you won’t find that from Casino Royale, or any other other lame movie hand where a straight flush beats four of a kind beats a full house beats a flush. Even
though the Oreo tell is a little lame, Gotta love Rounders!
Well, thats just like my opinion man.
-James Richmond
Hey man I don’t understand in 1st hand kgb vs matt Damon matt damo have full house &kgb have just three of a kind and how kgb win this poot because matt Damon have full house and kgb just three of a kind
Kgb also had a full house, and his was stronger than Damons. He had 2 aces, plus an ace on the board plus two 9s on the board. So Kgb had AAA99, and Damon had AA999
I’m guessing you’ve never actually seen a high stakes poker game, if you think ther’es going to be much silence. The ego battles are as big if not bigger than the card battles.